NOBLE Executive Board meeting
March 14, 2007
@ NOBLE
In
Attendance: NOBLE Executive Director Ron Gagnon , Sue Koronowski, Linda Hummel-Shea, Dennis Kelley, Elisabeth Tully, Barbara LaChance, Doug
Rendell, Karen Pangallo, Mary Rose Quinn, Martha
Holden, NOBLE Member Services Manager
Elizabeth Thomsen, NOBLE Systems Manager Martha Driscoll.
I.
Call to Order: President Sue Koronowski called the meeting
to order at 1:30 p.m.
II.
Approval of Minutes: A Motion to approve Minutes of the February 7, 2007 Executive
Board meeting was forwarded by Barbara LaChance,
seconded by Dennis Kelley, and unanimously approved.
III.
Treasurer’s Report: Mary Rose Quinn
distributed the Treasurer’s Report as of February 28, 2007. Doug Rendell forwarded a motion to approve
the Treasurer’s Report. Motion was
seconded by Linda Hummel-Shea, and unanimously
approved. Ron reported that one of
NOBLE’s 1 yr. CDs renewed of February 8.
Interest earned on the CD is $24,659.51.
Renewal balance is $572,620.51 at a new APR of 5%. Ron suggested transferring interest earned
last year to NOBLE’s capital account.
Martha Holden forwarded a motion to authorize transfer of $24,659.51, representing
interest earned on CD, to NOBLE capital account. Motion was seconded by Barbara LaChance and unanimously approved.
Ron outlined the status of the new server, cost of
which is $13,661.95. NOBLE received a
grant of $9,000 from Danversbank. The grant will be paid out in equal
installments over three years. With
$3,000 currently available from the Danversbank grant
and $6,000 in the operating budget to cover server costs, a balance of
$4,661.95 is needed to cover the cost.
Doug Rendell forwarded a motion to authorize the payment of $4,661.95
from the NOBLE capital account. Linda
Hummel-Shea seconded the motion that was unanimously
approved.
Ron reported that TIAA-CREF has changed its method
of accepting monthly payments from NOBLE.
Instead of writing monthly checks, in the future NOBLE is required to
make a monthly electronic transfer of funds.
While it is not more time-consuming for NOBLE, the new procedure removes
a level of oversight of the monthly payment.
Bob Guimond recommends that the Treasurer
review the transfer and initial the transaction on a monthly basis. Ron asked for a motion to allow the monthly
electronic transfer. Linda Hummel-Shea forwarded a motion to approve the monthly electronic
transfer and require that the Treasurer review and initial the transaction on a
monthly basis. The motion was seconded
by Barbara LaChance and unanimously approved.
IV.
Strategic Planning:
Ron
pointed out that as Executive Board considers strategic plan, it is important
to keep in mind Vision & Values Statements.
Ron distributed a summary of the January 11 meeting prepared by Margo Crist. He initiated
a discussion regarding “Forced Choice”.
Ron told the Executive Board that he envisions 3 phases in formulating
the strategic plan. Today’s goal is to
look at the “big picture” and come up with general concepts to be turned into goals
that will be determined at the next meeting.
A third meeting will finalize goals and come up with the 1st
annual action plan. Ron would like to
see a broad plan that allows for more latitude than the last strategic plan
allowed. Ron agreed to prepare a draft
that could be fine-tuned by the Executive Board. The Executive Board discussed
six topics as follows:
Support – The Executive Board agreed that the overall “support”
goal is to investigate and integrate new technologies for member libraries, and
explore new technologies in all service areas.
Ron will come up with a broad goal language to support this.
Elizabeth
Thomsen expressed an interest in de-emphasizing word “training”. NOBLE performs more “consulting” (often
regarding how different vendor products integrate with NOBLE). She has been spending more time visiting
libraries. This is time-consuming but
very effective. Sue Koronowski
noted that staffing levels should be considered because of changing role of
NOBLE in training. What resources do we
need to meet our goals? Barbara LaChance emphasized member-to-member sharing and the value
of roundtables. Elisabeth Tully stressed
the value of maintaining a manageable-sized network to retain high level of
personalized service. She also noted the
value of sharing of expertise and knowledge among NOBLE member libraries, and
pointed to NOBLE’s experience with
Advocacy – The general goal (language to be proposed by Ron
Gagnon) is that NOBLE will advocate and collect information for member
libraries. The three targets of advocacy
are vendors, funding sources, and the public (NOBLE’s marketing role). NOBLE’s advocacy role with respect to vendors
is pushing for software improvements that facilitate use by NOBLE libraries.
Collections – The Executive Board discussed the merits of
building shared collections including “floating” or “deposit” collections. Better collection sharing can benefit summer
reading programs and may provide cost relief for best-sellers. Should NOBLE purchase items on behalf of
member libraries? Opportunities for
collection sharing may extend to downloadable products by Recorded Books and/or
Overdrive. NOBLE may be able to put into
place processes for group purchases – formal suggestion, investigation, possible
group purchase. NOBLE database items
should also be considered shared collection.
The
Executive Board also discussed goals for resource sharing. Individualized policies by libraries with
regard to what they will and will not share affects the public’s perception of
how effective NOBLE is in providing access to materials in the most expedient
manner. The group discussed the merits
of, and obstacles to, standardizing resource sharing rules so that the borrower
and library staff have better understanding of how requests will be handled.
Access- The Executive
Board agreed that the major barrier to information access is that the OPAC and
databases do not work the way customers expect web-based systems to work. Each comes with a different set of rules and
options that makes it more difficult to access information effectively and
efficiently. The goal is to make library
information better integrated and easier to search.
As
vendor relationships evolve over the next few years, NOBLE will have an increasingly
important role in integrating different software packages into the system so
that they work well within the NOBLE network configuration. Patron authentication and maintenance of
NOBLE database integrity will be increasingly important.
Advance Technology – Two themes were discussed under this topic: the opportunities that will be provided with
open source technology; and the “disintegrated” library system whereby a
variety of new products will be customized and used by individual libraries and
the network. With the possible shift
away from the traditional and rigid vendor product toward open source software,
the old vendor model will not endure into the future. Instead of NOBLE requesting (and more times
than not, being refused) innovation and customization from a vendor who
controls the software, NOBLE will take on the role of writing software and
sharing information with other users who may be other library networks or
individual users. Innovative is not
preparing for this model and is reluctant to provide software enhancements,
even on a fee basis. NOBLE’s role will
be to bring in more customized applications for member libraries and take a
major role in creating and customizing open source software.
Structure and role of NOBLE – The role of NOBLE will be dramatically changed with
the advent of open source technology.
NOBLE staff will spend much time researching and integrating
software. This will affect NOBLE staff
resources. Martha Driscoll reported that
this will be offset by the savings in a significant amount of time spent trying
to make Innovative work as it should. The
vendor structure will change dramatically as well, providing new vendor
relationship models, and the opportunity for new partnerships with open source
clients and libraries/networks using open source. NOBLE will have to consider outsourcing some programming
tasks, or may have to consider hiring a programmer/consultant. NOBLE will have to balance the specific needs
of individual libraries against standard needs for the majority of
libraries. Elizabeth Thomsen noted that
our web server and e-mail server have been running open source software for
several years with the result that the end product is customized to NOBLE’s
needs. The overall goal, according to
(Ron
Gagnon will work on the topics discussed above and propose written goals
for Executive Board review and approval
.)
V.
Consideration of a part-time PC technician position: Ron requested
that the Executive Board consider the approval of a part-time PC technician to
ease some of the increased demand on George Lally. He asked that the Board approve the position
for one day/week at a rate of $20/hour – approximate market rate for that
position. There are sufficient funds in
the budget to cover the position this fiscal year, and going forward the
position would be worked into the participatory fee for PC support. Mary Rose Quinn forwarded a motion to
authorize the hiring of a part-time PC technician at the rate of $20/hour for
one day/week. Motion was seconded by
Barbara LaChance and unanimously approved.
VI.
Maintenance Cost of Wireless Security Controllers: Ron
outlined the processes different libraries went through to implement wireless
network security locally. Some libraries
purchased Bluesocket controllers – as recommended by NOBLE- on their own, and
others’ purchases were funded by a NOBLE grant.
The contract with the vendor included one year’s maintenance. When NOBLE informed libraries that they were
responsible for continued maintenance costs, there were complaints that NOBLE
had promoted wireless as a “free” program and that they were unaware of ongoing
costs, and therefore had not budgeted accordingly. NOBLE’s initial response was that the entire
network could probably not be held financially responsible for a service that
is not a core service provided to the entire network. Ron asked the Executive Board to discuss the
issue. After much discussion, the
Executive Board agreed that it would be unfair to require that libraries that
chose not to participate in the Bluesocket wireless security implementation, would
be forced to cover the cost of a premium service in other libraries. Ron pointed out the fact that libraries that
had purchased the product on their own, had signed contracts that specifically
outlined the one-year maintenance-included policy with an optional maintenance
agreement billed annually for subsequent years. For network security reasons, it may be
required that all libraries that offer wireless maintain approved security
controllers as long as the wireless service is operational. Ron will gather
additional information on Bluesocket software security patches, time and
materials costs and the like, combined with quotes which will provide info on
the Cisco solution, and report back next month.
VII.
Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted:
Martha Holden, Secretary